Tell us what you thought of 'J. Edgar'

Clint Eastwood's "J. Edgar" opened in a few select theaters on Wednesday, but today's it's expanding to a wider audience and it's about that time to get your thoughts. I've already rifled off my schizophrenic take from the film's AFI Fest world premiere (and I like it less the further I spin away from it). Meanwhile, we offered up a list of the best performances from Clint Eastwood films to mark the occasion earlier this week. Now, though, it's time to put the question out to the audience. If you get around to the film this weekend, do come back and give us your take.

Get the latest In Contention news delivered to your inbox as it happens.

Kristopher Tapley has covered the film awards landscape for over a decade. He founded In Contention in 2005. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Times of London and Variety. He begs you not to take any of this too seriously.

Comments

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

I have to begin with DiCaprio's performance, because it's outstanding, bringing tenderness and vulnerability to a strange loner with unchecked power. His scenes with Hammer, also excellent, provide the film's strongest moments through crackling intensity brought on by their sexual repression. The wardrobes and set pieces were stellar and the film does have a deft touch in regards to moving between eras.

BUT...Black's script contains some major problems, mainly in terms of taking on the "greatest hits" approach to Hoover's life. I thought the muted tones Eastwood shoots with work well with the "modern" scenes but using a brighter palette in the flashbacks would have made for an interesting contrast especially once:SPOILER ALERTwe realize all of Hoover's stories were exaggerated. I would have liked to see some visual exaggeration to match the verbal...Also, Hammer's make-up actually works following his stroke but not before hand. His face looks washed out.END SPOILER

Critics who latched on to the flaws to give J. Edgar a negative review overlooked phenomenal, Oscar worthy work from Leo while ignoring a strong production values and a story that, although flawed, still presents an intriguing look at a polarizing figure in American history. I initially gave the film a B, but the work from DiCaprio and Hammer is so good that it earns a B+, fringe nomination worthy and absolutely worth seeing.

Oh, and I should add that Hoover's accent only "slips" when he's nervous or in a position of subservience. He bases his vocalization on verbal exercises provided by a doctor and there lies a strong veneer of phoniness. I'm not a critic so it's kind of pathetic that I picked up on it while some professionals did not.

Jesse, nice take on the accent. Certainly worked for me in a similar way.Kris, I don't know if Jesse's last sentence is directed at you or not, but still, the snide stab of your comment is off-putting. You do better when you call out other poster's unnecessary rudeness, and lose much of your moral authority of host of a site aspiring to a certain civilized intelligent tone when you resort to meanness yourself.

Yeah, Kris, my comment wasn't directed at you. I thought your take on the film during your podcast with Anne Thompson was very thoughtful. And why would my trying to defend a well-intentioned film earn such a snarky response? I'd think that it's a far graver error for critics to take a shallow, dismissive view toward the work of a notoriously diligent actor.

I can't tell the tone of "you want a cookie". I don't know if it was intended as snark or blunt agreement. But based on what Jesse Crall said, I think that's a stellar observation. And I agree that many critics don't "get" things that are placed right in front of them.

DiCaprio, Hammer, and Watts give powerhouse performances. Mainly DiCaprio. Hammer is a little awkward in the older stages- maybe it's the makeup but something was a little off. Based on performances alone, the film is a triumph. Everything else... just stumbles. The makeup was distracting... I thought I would eventually get use to it (especially on Hammer) but that never did happen. A few people sitting next to me had the same problem. The love story between Tolson and Hoover is what won me over and ultimately, I think that's a great part of what the film is meant to deliver. People who gloss over that or dismiss it are missing out on something spectacular. Certainly not the strongest film, and the script wasn't on the level of Black's previous effort, but I still don't see how it earned a 40% on RT. That's just shameful.

Worth nothing: For about 90% of the film, all I kept thinking was how wonderful Todd Haynes would have been in the director's chair. This to me, is not an Eastwood film. Haynes all the well. Claustrophobia, dealing with closeted homosexuality, stifling parental figures, complicated relationships... has Haynes written all OVER IT!

I was surprised to find that I actually liked it. I'm a history buff so I was intrigued by the story it presented (particularly the effect of the Lindbergh case on the FBI's origins) though, like others have said, I was not impressed by the organization of that story. It felt like DLB was trying to be "artsy" and instead just made a big mess. That back-and-forth editing was just unnecessary, it didn't match well with the cliched "Greatest Hits" approach, and I don't think the 1930s/1960s parallels added anything to the story. (It makes a nice contrast to Martha Marcy May Marlene, though, for how that editing can work or can fail miserably.)

I thought Leo did a nice-ish job with the emotion, but I really struggled with the accent, as I have done with most of the films he's been in. He was just trying too hard to sound stately. Perhaps not surprisingly, my favorite scene of his was the very quiet (verbally at least) scene in his mother's room after her death. The emotion felt most real there. But the real star to me was Armie Hammer, who brought both the charisma in the first half, the emotion (which better provided a lens into Hoover's faults) in the second.

There were a few "gotcha" moments that the film tried to have on the audience that I don't made as big an impact as they should have-- Tolson's blow-up scene and the revelation that Hoover was exaggerating his story come to mind. I don't know if I should blame Eastwood or Black for that fact...

Overall, I'm glad I saw it and am surprised that it has gotten so many bad reviews (I think it might just be Eastwood fatigue-- I rolled my eyes several times at the use of the extreme white palette). If I were rating it myself on Metacritic, I'd give it a '55'.

Ah, gotcha. Do you realize (and I'm not being snippy at all with my tone, just curious) that the 40% on RT is only the 'percentage' of negative reviews to positive ... not an actual number that one gives a film (i.e., 55)?

In other words, on RT, only 40% of the critics recommend it, but the "average rating is 5.8", similar to Metacritic's 59.

It's not particularly good - histrionic, feigned, a bit cluttered, emotionally strained. I think Eastwood's films, what with their desaturated color pallette and dramatic side lighting with deep contrast, have a very technically proficient style that's instantly recognizable and quite enjoyable at times, yet he ALWAYS has scenes or slips in authenticity that stick out like a sore thumb. (Nixon's inaugural parade was a travesty) and the film's tumultuous make-up was certainly distracting, especially when Armie Hammer shows up and he just looks like death.

I went in with very low expectations and when I came out of the theater I still had tears on my face. I don't think it's as crappy as it's been made out to be. Honestly, I don't think it should end up at 40% on RT. Yes, the first few scenes are a mess. Too many cuts and angle shifts and I found some camera movements unnecessary. I also agree with the problems with Black's script that others pointed out. The 'revelation' scene didn't make that big of an impact on me, either. But I appreciate how Black tried to strike a balance between Hoover as hard-working, fastidious FBI director and him as a troubled closeted gay. I wouldn't sympathize with the way he delivered justice, but at least I felt like I understood him and the fears, insecurities and struggles that he had as a lone guy with so much to hide but only few to trust.

It's impossible to talk about this film without mentioning DiCaprio's top-notch performance here, probably it tops his turn as Howard Hughes in The Aviator. He's that impressive and simply phenomenal. Having seen the trailer over and over, I thought I was going to hate the makeup, but it turned out to be not much of a distraction. DiCaprio and Armie Hammer made their scenes together feel emotionally authentic. Naomi Watts blew me away too. But I was kind of sorry for Judi Denci because her character doesn't really do much, just exists there, talking/listening to her son. Only in this one scene where she says something along the lines of 'I'd rather have a dead son' does her character come alive as an authoritative parental figure, whose chastity (plus Hoover's loyalty to her mother) must have had a decisive influence on her son's moral-sexual development.

Overall, despite its disorganized plot, this film has the stunning performances and production design worth your money, and I'd happily give it a B-. And an Oscar nom is in the bag for DiCaprio.

"J. Edgar", which features Leonardo DiCaprio's greatest adult performance to date, is about many things, for example the political sociopathy of an emotionally stunted man.But what resonated the most for me is the love story that barely dares to name itself, where the lovers only kiss twice, and only once on the lips, and that in anger.And yet as told in this movie something eloquent and touching lives in this sad, constricted relationship.

I really enjoyed J Edgar from beginning to end. It always had my attention, from the first glimpse of leo in full make up that was at first a little weird but after that scene i was totally enthralled into leo's finest performance of his career of one of the biggest figure of the 20th century. No doubt in my mind leo deserves the oscar for this performance. We saw every side of j edgar through leo's emotionally complex performance. I agree with you kris about the problems with the script. There is a great movie here if the story is told the right way. i think the way eastwood directed this and leo's performance with a better overrall structure of the timeline of J edgars life, there could be a great film here. The movie felt a little out of whack, but not enough to lose your attention. However that being said. i still found the movie to be one of the best of the year because of the perfomances and just the sheer scope of this mans life and how much he meant to this country. A really good film that could have been even better.

I haven't sen the film but can't help wondering about those who say things like "an Oscar nom is in the bag for DiCaprio." Only one actor has received a best actor nod for a film this poorly received over the past decade (Sean Penn for "I Am Sam") and that was in a VERY weak year. DiCaprio may be nominated but only if enough members of the actors' branch are willing to overlook a number of better-received performances in better-received films...

My feelings for this film are simple. The first hour is dry, too talky, and uninspired. That said, I thought the final hour was quite good.

I feel like it took me an hour to settle into the performances/look, as well. I hated the color palette/cinematography. But the sets/costumes were very good. I thought Leo's old age make-up was excellent; ditto Watts. And Armie Hammer's got better by the end of the film.

As for Oscars performances, I thought Leo was Leo in the 1930 scenes (with 2 exceptions below), but incredible in all the older scenes. His 2 most potent scenes, for me, were the post-kiss close-up reactions and the break down while wearing the dress. As for Hammer, Watts, and Dench, I am not sure any of them quite did enough for nominations. But I thought they were stellar with effective moments.